How to create your own problems

Initially when I saw this article on the rape T-shirt, I chuckled. Then, I stopped and realized why so many people are outraged by it. Rape is a horrible act of violence that should never be  subjected on any person. So when I chuckled, I do want to be clear, I was not condoning rape in any way. However, the word rape has been corrupted and the people to blame for this are the same people that are crying about this T-shirt.

(Source)

The question I have to ask is, "how are we meant to take the outrage seriously when you get what people call eye-rape?" For you that don't know what eye-rape is, basically it is when you look at a lady. In fact eye-rape is something some women are proud of themselves.But, I think this picture explains the idea behind eye-rape better than I ever could.

(Source)

Now after seeing the above sign I am sure when you look at the T-shirt again, you could be excused for seeing the funny side. We live in a world were there are enough problems, there is no need to create your own. It can make something serious like rape seem trivial, when it gets used in an absurd context that makes zero logical sense.

Idiot of the week - Me

I have written before about idiot of the week and why I do it. But I thought I would adress another issue that seems to crop up a lot. As such, I have nominated myself for the prestiguous idiot of the week.

Why?

Well, I know I say things sometimes without always supplying a source. Do I need a source to say homeopathy is not science? I know I cant spell very well. So their, there, they're.

In  fact, I admit I am an idiot in this sense. You can have no doubt about me accepting this truth.

 (Source)

Now, let me issue a challenge. How about you theists (and other fools that are too clever for themselves) that have nothing to contribute to the conversation except whine about sources (and offer none for their claims) and spelling/grammar actually contribute something meaningful and evidenced based. If not you are an idiot too.

Pedophilia in Sunday School

Recently, I was listening to The Bitchspot Report Podcast number 72.In the Podcast Mike and Cephus discussed the case of a sex offender that was rehired by a church and subsequently re-offended. What makes this case even more horrible than normal is that the church knew that this person was a registered sex offender.

The worst part about this case and others of this type is that the public expects the church to be more responsible than they are. We would expect an organization that bases its philosophies on some all loving god to be better. So this leads to the following question. Why, would you rehire a sex offender?

In fact, even if you rehire a sex offender (for some reason) why would you put them in a situation where the are tempted to re-offend. For example, recently I started on a diet and its going well. The one thing I do though is avoid food I love, as I don't want to be tempted to eat excessively. To put it differently, would you put a kleptomaniac in charge of the register at the shop.

Then, I came across this Darkmatter video and it got me thinking. Should we really be surprised that these types of things happen in churches when the book they learn out of is so corrupt.

Warning: The following clip may offend some, and it contains very offensive language. But it is super funny :)

My views on Philosophy - revisited

Its amazing that I have to write a post like this. Its amazing, yet necessary. Basically, every time I write about philosophy and the disrespect I have for some ideas in philosophy I generally get some comments on that how can you be so ignorant etc etc etc.

So here let me clarify my position on philosophy as clearly as possible.

1) I do not consider all philosophy irrelevant.

2) I do consider philosophical ideas that have been proven wrong irrelevant.

Its really that simple to understand.

There are some really bad philosophical ideas that have helped us to  progress as a society. For this reason I believe you can learn something from the history of philosophy. However, if you are building some great over arching life thesis on false disproved philosophical ideas you are wrong and I think you are an idiot.

Hope this clarifies my position for future reference.

Climate Change - Part 4

 Update: Click here for parts 1, 2, 3

We have come to the end of the Climate Change posts, so let me try wrap it up all neatly and give my reasons for believing the validity of Climate Change.

Every week at work, I get multiple high impact manuscripts presenting further evidence for climate change pass my desk. The facts are undeniable in my opinion that climate change is in fact occurring. However, as with anything it is not an easy subject to be so convinced as I am, as there is a lot of incorrect information out on the Internet as well. Additionally, I will state again as I said before, I do not know what the consequences of climate forcing will be.

Unfortunately, there are papers in Climate Change that do appeal to peoples emotions, such as the "Loss of cultural world heritage and currently inhabited places to sea-level rise". This manuscript is in fact brilliant and drives home a very valid point about climate change, however it can be used for spin in the incorrect way by nay sayers. Then there are lesser know papers, that are not that sensational but are real eye openers if you understand all the intricate details. So at the moment, I do not think all the relevant information about Climate Change is reaching the public in general to convince as well as it could be.

Then regarding the disinformation and nay sayers. Do you remember the so called "Climategate" scandal? Basically, it was where some people were saying that it was climate scientists just creating a smoke screen and creating data to mislead the public and make money. Well, if you actually had taken the time to read the e-mails pointed too you would have seen this was utter rubbish. As such, most of the lunatic climate deniers are just lying about climate change.

In closing, I cannot decide for you on this topic. However, in my opinion this is a pretty clear cut case.

Climate Change - Part 3

Update: Click here for parts 1, 2, 4

In my initial Climate Change post, I indicated that there are some lunatics that completely deny Climate Change. These are not your run of the mill Climate Deniers, they are more the Chick tract Climate change deniers saying that Jesus is in charge of the Climate so nothing is wrong.

The problem is these are really unscientific people. They look at a ten year time scale and do  not look at the greater timescale. What I mean is, over the past few years there has been a almost no global temperature increase (it is a very slight upwards trend). However, this is 15 years over the general trend for the last 2000 years. Now I will agree that the climate temperature does cycle over the millenia as I pointed out in my first point. On the other hand, these people are denying a global temperature increase based on a few years data, and this is dangerous. As I pointed out in my last post, CO2 usually precedes an increase in global temperature and the CO2 is off the charts compared to other fluctuations in temperature versus CO2 emissions.

(Source)

These people are disingenuous and are akin to fundamentalist theists who deny any logic whatsoever. Like I said before, and I will repeat again, most so called climate change deniers actually agree that the average global temperature is increasing. However, they just deny that this rise is attributable to human emissions to the extant that climate scientists do.

However, the lunatics that deny any warming what so ever are running out of place to hide with there excuses, as it seems that this missing "heat" has been found. (link to subscription article) In fact it is now believed that the warming has not stopped, but in fact the oceans are just adsorbing more of this heat and as such the oceans are getting hotter. The oceans getting hotter is in fact a major problem as this can lead to de-glaciation, coral reef destruction and perhaps it could be a big contributer to more severe weather systems.

In closing, if you can take anything away from this blog post it is this. Global Warming is happening and this current hiatus is not enough to dismiss this claim. If you do, you are missing the bigger picture.

Suppose this Climate Change post is apt for this day, after all this would be the idiot of the week segment.

Climate Change - part 2

 Update: Click here for parts 1, 3, 4

Welcome to part 2, I hope you enjoyed part 1 and understand I am not a fundamentalist climate scientists who is forcing stuff down your throat without some serious thought.

As I pointed out in the first post, everyone pretty much agree global warming is happening. As such I have included a graph below which demonstrates this. Similar graphs to this caused a lot of controversy by making the claim that there is a link between the rise in anthropogenic gases and climate change.

 (Source)

As you can see from this graph there has been a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) over the past 150 years which coincides with the industrial revolution and mass manufacturing. From there it is easy to make the logical leap to say that the greenhouse effect is due to this increase in CO2 and CH4, as they are greenhouse gases which can in fact cause a greenhouse effect. This is even corroborated further by the research which shows that CO2 increase proceeds a temperatures rise, see image below. As such if we are to look at the current CO2 levels we are surely in for some serious heat in the not to near future.

(Source)

For this reason I believe that the predicted rise attributed to anthropogenic gas emissions is completely reasonable. However, even if we are to dismiss this CO2 relation for a moment there is still reason to be concerned. This brings me to my first study (link is subscription)  which I really think proves that we should be worried.

This manuscript shows that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere leads to an increase in the emission of NOx and CH4 gases from the soil i.e. bacteria in the soil. Basically what is happening is that plants are getting placed under stress by an increased CO2 concentration which leads to an unexpected result i.e. NOx and CH4 emissions from the soil bacteria. This is not what is expected and in fact points to the fact that the earth is not this ideal CO2 remover that everyone thought. It would have been if this CO2 adsorption by plants had not lead to this side effect, but this is not what is happeing.

This is not the first study that shows this type of link between increased CO2 in the atmosphere leading to increased other anthropogenic gas emissions, and it won't be the last, but its the one that caught my eye.  So why did this make me double take? This result is important  as CH4 is a far more potent greenhouse gas and usually we think that with an increased CO2 leads to more vegetation as plants absorb it. However, in this case it means even if plants are absorbing more CO2 and producing more leaves, thereby offsetting (slightly) the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, this in turn leads to an increase in CH4 in the atmosphere.

This is just one study that makes me realize that the human contribution to climate change could in fact lead to dire consequences.

The Body of Christ (funny)

I saw this picture around the Internet and was surprised at its authenticity. So here is the picture of communion packed for the modern day. I suppose the one good thing is that it avoids getting more bacteria than the high dose of bacteria and fecal matter you get from splashing the holy water on your head when you enter the Church.

Christianity made easy? Coming soon Pat Robertson Holograms to berate you at home while you are eating diner or having sex.

Climate Change - Part 1

Update: Click here for parts 2, 3, 4

The following few days I will be on vacation so I thought what a better time to post about climate change, or what is also colloquially called global warming. In this way, I only have to face the rage (or non rage) when I come back from vacation and am feeling refreshed. So enjoy the climate change special. I will be labeling them simply from 1.

(Source)

Despite what some people will believe the reason I believe global warming is true is not because I am an angry atheist. After all, this Chick tract clearly shows that global warming is not real and as such surely I have to be counter the church ;P

The reason I believe global warming or climate change is real is based in scientific data. I would in fact say that climate forcing by excess emission of greenhouse gases (CH4, CO2, NOx, SOx) is certainly playing a role.This belief of mine in fact is probably the biggest contention between climate scientists and what many people term climate change deniers. This name is a horrible name, as it is not really a true representation of these peoples position. In this first post I want to address the issue of whether global warming actually is occurring

It may, or not, surprise you that what climate scientists term climate change deniers in fact also agree that climate change is happening. The difference between the two groups is that the deniers believe that human driven climate change is either (1) not real, or (2) that it has such a minimal effect that it is really irrelevant to the total climate change. This is a very important distinction to make, as no one is denying that climate change is happening. Well,except for the real lunatics which I will address at some point in this series. Basically, it is a debate about what or whom is causing climate change.

For me I would say the human role is significant enough to be of concern. The obvious flaw with this argument is that it is near impossible to quantify what percentage of warming is actually attributable to human involvement. However, I have been on the cautionary side, for a long time now, by saying that the biggest issue is we do not know what the outcomes will be. To put it another way, I am not saying the world is going to become a barren desert. I am merely saying that with actions their are consequences. Its like any pollution really it has a negative effect on the environment and at this point we don't know what these effects will be.

The fact is the anthropogenic gases such as methane have very dramatic effects not just on warming but also on other systems. Its true that CO2 may not be the biggest problem to global warming, however it can create problems by being at a significant level where it has never been before. The sun certainly does go through cycles of increased intensity, but the intensity of the suns radiation is not just determined by a heat rise it has to do with all the radiation that is coming out of it and this radiation may find more anthropogenic gas effective for other reasons which could force climate change.

In this series I will point out to some scientific papers that I believe show that  this is in fact a serious problem that we should be addressing. Its not my position to tell you what I think the future holds, however I can tell you that I think we should be more responsible and try reverse the damage caused.

See you in part 2.

Idiot of the week - Lyn Leahz

Sometimes the idiot of the week segment is just too good. Its at times like this that I in fact don't have to say much but just enjoy the video, and if you have been looking for an excuse not to do the ALS ice bucket challenge I have found a loop hole.

Lyn Leahz you are a lunatic! There you have it, the ALS ice bucket challenge is just a special way to get baptized into the Satanic order. I mean why would such a nice batshit crazy lady lie to me. Thankfully I have not done the ice bucket challenge as I really dont want to become demon possesed. ;)

Its refreshing to be talking about an idiot this week that is not putting atheists in jail or abducting children. This idiot just is truly that 100 % pure irrational stupidity.

Lyn Leahz you are my idiot of the week well done.

Subjective morality = Objective morality?

Earlier this week I did a post about word play and I mentioned there that the post was inspired by an exchange that had to do with objective versus subjective morality. It may surprise some people that morality is subjective. Simply put if morality was not subjective we would still be hanging people from crosses and marrying off our daughters when they were 12 years old. But, besides in some backward countries, this does generally not happen anymore. That means our/mine/your morality has changed (or not changed). So as simple as this example may seem. I was highly irritated when I got told this as it made my head ache.

I underlined the things in this paragraph that will probably also give you head ache. Either that or I am simply too stupid to understand what this person is saying to me.

"So one can believe in an objective morality but also believe that we can take people's moral beliefs into consideration, just that they are not the sole determinant. That objective morality can define some parameters (murder is wrong for example) does not mean it has to leave no gray area. It also doesn't mean the objective truth is simple. "Murder is wrong" is a simplification. For instance killing in self-defense or as part of a just war. Still once all exceptions, unlesses and clauses that say "in the case of X use your own judgment" are accounted for and put into a sentence you have an objectively moral sentence. Hence some of what you call subjective or relative morality is part of objective morality but the ways in which morality is subjective or relative are themselves objective and morality is not in every single way subjective or relative."

Sorry, I apologize for that throbbing pain in your temples. Please if I am reading this wrong I implore you to set my right. However, it seems to me that this is a basic misunderstanding of what the words objective and subjective mean. Or its someone trying to say that subjective = objective, which is a very common argument I encounter in these morality discussions. The problem is that you cant pretend two things are the same when they are clearly not and they have been pre-defined to be two different things. Lastly, you cannot make bare assertions without backing them up.

Then to tie up this misunderstanding I got told something about atheism that must clearly be not true. In fact this gem of knowledge is something that may surprise the atheists out there reading this and that is:"You probably think you have to be a relativist (or really according to the way the word "morality" should be used, a nihilist) because you are an atheist."

There you have it atheists have to think morality is subjectivei.e.  we are all nihilists. Seems this guy does not know much about atheism, as some atheists believe morality is objective. That and also atheism is purely the rejection of god claims as their is not enough evidence. That is all it is, but hey what do I know?

Word play simply explained

I get so irritated with theists and non-skeptics that use word play so liberally when they have no argument to present. This recently happened to me when I was discussing morality with someone and the fact that it is not objective but in fact subjective. But more on that later this week, I dont want to include it here as it will just confuse things.

(Source)

Basically the only way this persons argument makes sense if you liberally apply word play. However, this was a smart wordplay compared to most others I have encountered. The person was basically saying "yes, we can't just redefine words so that they suit us" and they are correct. But then before you start an argument using words whose meaning have changed in modern society, then it is essential that you define them before hand and don't try be a smart ass. To clarify this I gave the person I was arguing against this simple example.

Gay is now equated with homosexuality. However, this is not what gay means.

To this I got more rants that we cant just change words defintions as they are defined in dictionaries and its the way it is. Yet, the person never adressed the example I asked. The reason it was never adressed was that simply put it makes sense and the person does not want to agree with the logic that is staring them in their face.

Here are some other words that have changed with time, and no I am not an English major.
Handsome: Used to be used for men and women.
Faggot: A bundle of sticks or a meatball.
Tramp: Used to refer only to a homeless person.
Bitch: Used to refer only to a female dog.

In other words if you are using word play to win an argument you are being
shady. Shady, not as in a plant offering shade. Shady as in dishonest.

Celebrities

This topic is something that has nothing to do with atheism, its more a little rant about something that really irritates me. It has to do with the amount of respect that people have for celebrities who more often than not do not deserve it. In fact in my opinion some people have more respect for celebrities than they do themselves. The real truth is that celebrities are just people that shit, breathe and die like every other person on this planet.

The reason I am more riled up than normal by this is the recent news of the nude photos leaks. Firstly, it was not a leak and I do agree that these celebrities privacy has been invaded. Secondly, I do also think that if they find this person they should sentence them to the extant that the laws allow. Now that I got that part out so no one can accuse me of being hater let me jump right into my rant.

The problem I have is that this "scandal" is getting so much press and FBI investigation if reports are to be believed. In contrast, when so called "normal" people get their privacy invaded no one cares. Yet some celebrities take nude photos then subsequently get these photos hacked and their is a storm on the media worldwide. There are even some lawyers talking of prosecuting anyone that shares these photos. This is just absurd, as these photos are now on the Internet and never coming back. Its just utter bollocks, what makes them special to get this sort of attention for the stupidity of putting personal photos of this sort on a cloud server. Yes, I said it. If you put private and important information on a cloud server you are not smart. These systems are not safe no matter what anyone tells you. The only way it can truly be safe is if your PC is not connected to the Internet and then you have to hope someone does not steal it.

It really is a actions and consequence situation. No one expects to get hacked. No one expects to get their computer with nude photos to get stolen. However, it happens and anyone that take nude photos should realize this is a risk. If you are a celebrity you are just a normal person in my eyes and so the same rules apply.

Idiot of the week - Ken Langone

This idiot of the week is a theist, but surprisingly for this segment, that is not the reason he is an idiot.

Ken Langone is a wealthy guy, but apparently he does not like to be reminded of that by the Pope. Or should I say he does not like the way the Pope supports the poor. To him it is as if the Pope caring for less fortunate is a bad thing. Its incredible I am actually defending the Pope in this story. But this story raises an important issue about charitable donations that I have never understood. When you give to charity, you are meant to give because you want to. You are not meant to give because the Church tells you, or you feel the need to justify yourself in front of others (ALS ice bucket challenge?).  If the Pope is making you feel bad and you want to stop giving to charity then you are an idiot.

In fact, why should anyone know you are giving money to charity in the first place? Its charity! Its meant to be altruistic. While in reality we know this is not the case as you always see celebrities etc. giving checks and posing for photos so that we think they are good people. Frankly, I don't care if you give or do not give  money, I don't want to know about it and I don't want you to tell me about it.  However, if the Pope caring for poor people is going to stop you giving money then you are an idiot. Makes me wonder how someone so smart can be so dumb. Then again he is giving to the Republican party...

xxx
BTW the Republican Party jab is intended at the current state of the US Republican party.

Gods are dicks

I will be honest, I have no idea why anyone believes in any god. Firstly, there is no evidence to support the claim of any god and secondly gods are dicks. Think about it, many people chose different gods to believe in, yet every single one of them is a dick. It makes me wonder if belief in gods is humanities way to cope with the fact that some people tend to be self centered way to much?

For example, the god Cronus was a dick as he killed his kids, then the one kid (Zeus) that got away from been eaten by Cronus himself became a dick. Zeus went and enchained his father Cronus, but I suppose we cant blame Zeus as he was born into a family where destroying each other is pretty par for the course. But Zeus did not stop there, he used to sleep around with mortals and other gods and well even himself?

(Source)

But of course, most modern day theists will say that all these stories are just mythology. They will insist that their gods do not act like this at all and in reality they are loving gods.

Well what about Yahweh, I mean Yahweh was a dick. In fact he used to screw his own people over just because they would drink tea with their left hand or something more ridiculous like speaking the name of another god. But, then God got a change of heart and decided to become/send Jesus who turns out was ..... a dick. I mean the guy cursed a fig tree and made pigs jump of cliff. Surely, this makes Jesus a dick.

So if you are worshiping a god without any evidence what is your reason? Do you praise your dick god, because you are a dick? While this may seem tongue in cheek, I am always interested to learn why people believe in their specific god.

Holy Wars

Recently I watched the documentary Holy Wars. It was first released in 2010 so its pretty old now, but it is certainly something I would suggest watching. It deals with the life of  Christian as well as a Muslim fundamentalist, so its pretty unique in that aspect. In fact in one part of the movie, these two fundamentalists even sit down and have a lively discussion. I would not say there is a winner or a loser in this debate, as both were discussing different topics. Regardless it was entertaining.

What you will see in both of these people is a certain cognitive dissonance or victim playing when things are not going their way. Additionally, you will see that Christian Fundamentalism does not even come close to the craziness that is Islamic fundamentalism. Please do not think I am saying anyone should tolerate Christianity, I am merely pointing out that Islam is a far worse curse on this Earth than Christianity. However, this may purely be because there are secular people in the West which keep the Christians honest. As such they are not able to follow there biblical laws to their hearts content.

In fact, its really a surreal situation, as the Muslim in this documentary is not born in the middle of Afghanistan, and then was brought up by the Taliban when his mother got killed by a Russian soldier. This is just a guy that was born in Ireland and then adopted Islam when he got sent to jail. As such to hear the normal jihadist lines thrown out by this fool is a good enough reason than any to ban Islam. If you watch this movie and can still say Islam is a religion of Peace then your two brain cells in your head are getting lonely. Interestingly, he adopted Islam as he was in an Islamic countries jail makes you wonder if he would have adopted Christianity in a Christian countries jail.

Here is a You Tube copy of the documentary I found.Can't say how long this video will be around.